STATE OF PUNJAB v.

AVTAR SINGH (Criminal Appeal No.1064 of 2003)

OCTOBER 21, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge is this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court of  Punjab and Haryana directing acquittal  of  the  respondent.  Two appeals  were filed before  the High Court  i.e.  Criminal  Appeal  No. 169–DB of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 328–DB of 1995. Both the appeals  were  directed  against  the  judgment  of  learned  Sessions Judge,  Bhatinda  holding  that  each  of  the  accused  persons  were guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The two appellants in the two connected appeals faced trial along with one Bant Singh who was acquitted  by the  trial  Court.  Detailed  reference to  the factual position is not necessary in view of the conclusions of the High Court in the two appeals.  

2. Firstly it  was submitted that there was considerable delay in lodging  the  first  information  report  and  secondly  there  was considerable  unexplained delay in sending the report  to the Elaka Magistrate.  It  was concluded by the High Court  that  these factors apart from the fact  that  the evidence of the so called eye–witness was  not  credible  and  cogent  and  also  the  medical  evidence  was clearly  at  variance  with  the  ocular  version  rendered  prosecution version vulnerable.  

3.  Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant–State  submitted  that  the factors which have weighed with the High Court  to direct  acquittal cannot be maintained. Learned counsel for the respondent accused on the other hand supported the judgment.

4. Though it cannot be laid as a rule of universal application that whenever there is delay in lodging the FIR and/or there is delay in

despatching the report  to the Elaka Magistrate and/or  the medical evidence  is  at  some  variance  with  the  ocular  evidence.  The prosecution has to fail in the instant case the combined effect of the three factors leave no manner of doubt that prosecution has failed to establish the  accusations.  The view taken by the  High Court  is  a possible view and we do not consider this to be a fit case where any interference is called for.

5.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.